Either there is no god and no paranormal... or there are billions of good liars and dreamers

Originally posted by calihan123
Whether things are real in the physical world or not... they are very real to the people who experience them.

The paranormal manifestations that contributed to the development of some religions may still exist, but the cause are interpreted differently -- the attributes have changed. An ugly looking apparition is no longer solely associated with the devil. Given the influence of modern-day thinkers, the apparition is just an upset ghost that pops here and there and its presence is "rationally" explained by modern-day shamans called psychics.

The same car with a different paint job.

reply to post by badmedia


so when jesus condems the jews to hell

tells how he and god have blinded people so they cannot be saved

is also not the literal truth but so fairy tale parable about how some people wont be saved

dont take it literally ? so he said ti without meaning it

mulitpul times in matthew mark luke and john to various people but meant somthing totally different

really step back and think about it for a second

if a KKK memeber said to several groups of people we should go kill us some insert racist name of choice

it wouldnt be literal what he would actually mean is we should go invite them over for beers and a poker game we love our black neighbours adn should all live in harmony?

lets see how absurd this can get you have the rest of the list expalin them all i obviously dont know how to rea a bible please educate me some

Originally posted by calihan123
Jesus was never proved to be a real man who existed. It is only stories.

When dealing with history it is often the case that no evidence survives. Just try to find contemporary non-Roman evidence of Hannibal. Do you have physical evidence of every one of your ancestors? However, Josephus and Origen did write about Jesus at a time when Christianity was still a small cult.

www.bede.org.uk...

Originally posted by TheComte
When dealing with history it is often the case that no evidence survives. Just try to find contemporary non-Roman evidence of Hannibal. Do you have physical evidence of every one of your ancestors? However, Josephus and Origen did write about Jesus at a time when Christianity was still a small cult.

That's probably why God found it necessary to reveal the origin of mankind to Moses.

I can't believe that the OP asks for some proof of Jesus not being a myth when comparable stories of the modern-day paranormal are mostly nothing but a hearsay.

reply to post by noobfun


It is referring to people who don't see the truth and don't follow the path as those who won't be "saved". Of course, you can choose the truth and start following the path at any time, but the deeper into "hell" you get, the greater the journey will be as you pick yourself up.

The entire chapter talks about people who will hate them for what they say(spreading the truth). It tells them if people reject what they say, shake the dust off their feet and move on.

And it's pretty common knowledge that the truth is kept hidden from the people. And what would happen if the truth got out into the public? The public would no longer fall victim to these systems of tributes and such we have going on, hence the truth would destroy those institutions the same way a sword destroys a person.

From the same chapter:

16Behold, I send you forth as sheep in the midst of wolves: be ye therefore wise as serpents, and harmless as doves.

17But beware of men: for they will deliver you up to the councils, and they will scourge you in their synagogues;

18And ye shall be brought before governors and kings for my sake, for a testimony against them and the Gentiles.

Is this not exactly what happens if you try to wake people up to the truth about what the elite in this world do?

If everyone in this country suddenly woke up and understood what the federal reserve is doing and that it is a scam(the truth), then what do you think will become of that system?

If he was coming in "peace" as it says, then it would mean he would have to continue the ignorance and go along with the systems and authority.

"In a time of universal deceit - telling the truth is a revolutionary act."

Surely you can see how revealing the truth that can be a likened in a metaphor as to be bringing a sword?

[edit on 6-11-2008 by badmedia]

reply to post by noobfun


And this is why everyone has their own special view of what the Bible actually says.
And everyone thinks their view is the right one.

I'm sure all the laws in the Old Testament which command you to kill those who don't believe in God are only parables too...
And we think terrorists are so evil.
The religion which so many Americans hold is based on a terrorist mind set.
It's really funny and a bit sad how blind people can be.
Read into the bible all the sunshine and candy elements, and totally disregard all the absurdities which you know you disagree with.
Every Christian does it.

[edit on 6-11-2008 by TruthParadox]

reply to post by TruthParadox


I won't defend the old testament. I will only defend the words of Jesus. You are making some rather large assumptions there. Otherwise known as a straw man attack.

en.wikipedia.org...

A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position.[1] To "set up a straw man," one describes a position that superficially resembles an opponent's actual view, yet is easier to refute. Then, one attributes that position to the opponent. For example, someone might deliberately overstate the opponent's position.[1] While a straw man argument may work as a rhetorical technique—and succeed in persuading people—it carries little or no real evidential weight, since the opponent's actual argument has not been refuted.[2]

Originally posted by badmedia
I won't defend the old testament. I will only defend the words of Jesus.

Well guess what?
Jesus defended the Old Testament.
He said he did not come to abolish the old laws.

Originally posted by badmedia
You are making some rather large assumptions there. Otherwise known as a straw man attack.

I know what a straw man argument is, but I am not doing this.
I was not 'attacking' you.
I was making an observation about a majority of Christians.
An observation which is true.

But concerning the Old Testament, if you do not wish to be associated with that, then fine.
You may also omit Jesus' defense of the Old Testament laws while you're at it, because otherwise, you would surely be contradicting yourself.
And in doing so, you would just so happen to prove my point.
You pick and choose which verses to accept.
That is your 'truth'.

reply to post by TruthParadox


heh. Even that doesn't seem to be in accord between Christians!

Some say Jesus Christ abolished the Old Law, and replaced it with a New Law. Some say Christ abolished half of the Old Law, in that the Old Moral laws still applied i.e homos are still an abomination. While others say Christ didn't abolish any Old Law.

If Christians agreed with their interpretation of the Bible there would not be hundreds and hundreds of denominations of Christianity It's completely interpretative for them even though they usually claim it's divine interpretation.

Personally I only read the Red Text when I read through a Bible, and I openly admit I interpret it myself.

[edit on 6-11-2008 by Lucid Lunacy]

reply to post by TruthParadox


I belong to the religion of Jesus, not the religion about Jesus. I do not worship him, I just think/know he was right in what he said. I gained my knowledge outside the bible and can talk about it without mentioning Jesus. My main reason for defending Jesus is that people equate what the Christian chuch has done with what Jesus is about, and that is a lie.

It's no different than people who go around waving the American flag while proceeding to give away their liberties and abandon the principles this country was founded on. It's something that is done over many things, and people had better figure that out quickly.

Jesus didn't change the laws. Still to this day people live by the eye for an eye philosophy. You attacked me, I attack you. Why? Because he did not believe in government. He was offered to be king, but turned it down instead. He told people they were the authority, not the leaders. However, he did show people the path to heaven which was a new philosophy(compared to the old testament anyway).

To change the laws he would have had to become ruler, head of the church/government, all of which he rejected. He told people not to follow those people.

[edit on 6-11-2008 by badmedia]

reply to post by badmedia


Well that is a noble approach and I commend you for it.

The vast majority of Christians would not consider you a Christian though. That is the truth. A Christian, according to the majority, embraces the entirety of the Bible. And for many, a Christian also has to attend Church to be called a Christian.

But I agree that Jesus Christ was not trying create some new and separate institution. And I also just look for the Wisdom in his words alone.

I consider that to be a compliment if mainstream Christians don't consider me to be a christian. The chapter noobfun quoted even talked about that.

Matthew 10:17 But beware of men: for they will deliver you up to the councils, and they will scourge you in their synagogues;

Synagogues is a Jewish church/temple. Which is the equivalent to today's modern churches and institutions. It's not biggie for people who wish to keep and gain power to change symbolism.

Most of the open minded Christians however actually do listen to what I say, and can see what the church has done.

Originally posted by badmedia
Jesus didn't change the laws. Still to this day people live by the eye for an eye philosophy. You attacked me, I attack you. Why? Because he did not believe in government. He was offered to be king, but turned it down instead. He told people they were the authority, not the leaders. However, he did show people the path to heaven which was a new philosophy(compared to the old testament anyway).

yes he showed them the way with budism he quotes a lot of it and suprising those are the bits that you dont have to twist to be a good thing

Jesus didnt change the law he insulted people who didnt follow it. although it never seemed to matter where he was concernced he went around breaking the sabbath which is why the jews hated him and wanted to kill him any way(and god had very specific rules what you can and cant do on the sababath, collect fire wood stoned, work stoned, put wood on your fire stoned you get the general idea)

lets go back to matthew 10 shall we

you message doesnt follow your sword metaphore doesnt fit, by becoming awakened jesus will show you the truth then turn famalies agisnt them selves

i bring the truth(my trusty ole sword) to set brother against brother and sister against sister..... thats still not a good thing but then the other verses there is no sword no metaphore to blind yourself with just cold hard jesus bieng a douche

14:26 If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children,and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple.

14:33 So likewise, whosoever he be of you that forsaketh not all that he hath, he cannot be my disciple.

wow metaphor crumbles when you compare it to reality over and over its a common theme abandone everyone to follow me or dont even try and follow me

notice in none of these is he saying this could happen if you follow me, this will happen if you follow me .... no no none of them

EVERYTIME he says you have to do this to follow me

Originally posted by TruthParadox

And this is why everyone has their own special view of what the Bible actually says.
And everyone thinks their view is the right one.

at least the more fundamentalist the mind set becomes the closer it becomes to the bibles teachings, total ignorance racism sexism homophobia but at least honest enough to preach the good book

watching apologetics work on decimating any meaning from a bible verse is like watch a gymnastics floor show in the middle of a heavily mined battle field no matter what they manage to do your always more amzed by the fact they didnt trip over and thier head explode

i might try the mindset later see if i can read MainKampf and not acknowledge any racism and have hitler the humanitarian appear from the other side of the book

reply to post by calihan123


This is a fundamental question of all of living. You can attack this from many angles. Here's a simple notion from an evolutionary perspective.

That such a belief in the intangible "hopes", such as religion, hope for the future, hope for perpetuity of life (a belief in life after death, or rather of relative immortality, which is evident in our inability to cope with death itself), is an important element of the inclusive evolutionary behavior, which helped in the reproductive fitness of our species as whole. However, belief in things such as big foot, UFOs and aliens simply weren't important for these same reasons. Our tendency to be fearful at the thought of ever present, intangible "threats", would surely reduce our risk taking capabilities. We tend not to believe, and even scoff at that thought of the existence of those absurdly horrid monsters for that reason.

The belief in the Scientific Method itself, over all else, for some people is highly related to this type of evolutionary learning. Being able to physically test a theory, and knowing that it would provide consistent results allowed us to make better decisions, based on stronger foundations (this actually reduced the risk involved in what would appear to be, in the future, even more reckless risks) and ultimately benefited us in the form of greater planning and organization, especially on the hunt. When we started forming agrarian societies, and population density increased, we tended to let go of those values. This was probably because of increased levels of safety, sufficient to relax the need to undergo the constant, exhausting and extensive risk analysis that you would be going through all your life living as wandering hunter-gatherer tribes. Only until the emergence of the Greek city-states, did certain factors leading to the true recognition of the Scientific Method start to take some degree of shape, though not in its modern sense obviously. This great rediscovery was probably due to leisure that one acquired living in a very packed city (for that period of time in human history), with access to fresh water and almost unlimited food from outlying farmland. They were bored out of their minds. They began analyzing every seemingly useless thing they could put their minds to. Why in the world would Archimedes possibly waste his time trying to imagine an equation for the volume of his bath tub? Seems like an exercise in primordial hunter-gatherer risk analysis if you ask me. Sure, it had some societal value, but not until warfare became a predominant concern for these people. But before all that, there was a time between the agricultural revolution and the city-states that was relatively peaceful. Back then, you couldn't license your ideas for economic gain. Capitalism wasn't yet established, and wouldn't for another 1,500 years until it was popularized by the Dutch. The whole pursuit was very arbitrary, leading us to believe both boredom and leisure were sole determinants to the formation of these questions. When population increased even more, and warfare became more commonplace, this primeval scientific method became even more important. But not yet.

Taking it from the biological or purely historical approach, I feel, tends to dehumanize the entire scope of the question. But you can see at least where things connect. It removes any value from someone that would have liked to use the question as a personal pursuit for emotional and intellectual endeavor... I'd suggest looking at it from a sociological point of view, and then a psychological one. Those would be the most interesting. Definitely the most complicated. But in the end the most relatable, and applicable to everyday life.

[edit on 7-11-2008 by cognoscente]

[edit on 7-11-2008 by cognoscente]

Originally posted by noobfun
14:26 If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children,and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple.

14:33 So likewise, whosoever he be of you that forsaketh not all that he hath, he cannot be my disciple.

As for the first part of your post, I find that many of the religions carry the same philosophies and such. Truth is universal, only the idols/symbolism change to express that truth.

As for the 2 bible quotes.

You left out the part between the 2 verses where it talks about how men calcuate what they can achieve at what losses. This means that if you crave and have worldly possessions and are not ready to give them up, then you can not be his disciple, because you are simply looking and calculating the best rewards.

14:30Saying, This man began to build, and was not able to finish.

14:31Or what king, going to make war against another king, sitteth not down first, and consulteth whether he be able with ten thousand to meet him that cometh against him with twenty thousand?

14:32Or else, while the other is yet a great way off, he sendeth an ambassage, and desireth conditions of peace.

Meaning, if you hold onto physical possessions, you can not be a disciple as you will not be able to finish the job.

You are just taking things out of context and ignoring the parts that explain the reason why it was said to portray it in the worse light you possibly can. That's pretty dishonest.


[edit on 7-11-2008 by badmedia]

reply to post by badmedia


Sociologists have postulated that it is the idea called human "eidos" that leads us to these common beliefs, which then due to the political and social power structures of the time culminate in organized religious institutions. "Eidos" is just the general nature that apparently all human beings share, regardless of their natural environment, and of their social traditions, and what would in time be considered one's race (racism arguably didn't occur until population density reached a point where particular tribes would have been confronted with the conflicting interests of others in their proximity, i.e. the period encompassing the emergence of first Greek city-states). Although culture might transmit these ideas initially, and you do see common responses across isolated human populations to things such as adultery, murder, theft, and laws concerning civil disobedience, but the more complicated nature of our "eidos" becomes inevitably distorted over time by the aforementioned social and political, and then more importantly by the religious power structures. And that's why you see these massive differences in populations over longer periods of time, as opposed to shorter. These culturally transmitted deviations change at an almost exponential rate after a certain amount of time.


[edit on 7-11-2008 by cognoscente]

reply to post by cognoscente


Not sure about the force, but I agree in the premise of it. I mean, all you really have to do is put yourself in the other sides shoes and you can get the same kinds of understandings.

It's a big part in how I got my understanding. When I look at situations, I try to look at it from both perspectives. I think - how would I like it if that was being done to me. For example, I was against the Iraq war because I felt it was very hypocritical of us to punish someone else for something we had/do ourselves. Not to mention the whole preemptive deal where you actually become the aggressor you say you are defending against. Blatant hypocrisy from not looking at things from both sides of it.

And from that, I came upon only 1 universal law - and that is to never infringe on the free will of another being. Because when you put yourself in the other person's shoes, you will see that you are infringing on their free will etc, and thus not do it.

From that 1 universal law, you can get many other basic laws. Murder, theft, etc. Really, it's just the golden rule if you think about it.

And these basic principles are going to exist in any peaceful and decent society. When these principles are ignored, then you get things like the dark ages, where the people in charge regularly infringed on the free will of others, and would kill anyone who did not give away their free will. And like you say, it's generally the institutions of power/religion which manipulate people into doing it - they do not realize what they are sowing.

reply to post by calihan123


thought you were a little short on stars so, there ya go

a good question in my mind. you make a good point.


i think one reason may be because the bible has been around soooo long and has been instilled into family heritage (belief and teaching of the belief without question, that is) and the whole alien/ ghost thing has really only been around for a few decades. there have not been many conclusions made and it certainly has not been passed down generation to generation like peoples religion has.

just a thought.

Originally posted by badmedia

Meaning, if you hold onto physical possessions, you can not be a disciple as you will not be able to finish the job.

You are just taking things out of context and ignoring the parts that explain the reason why it was said to portray it in the worse light you possibly can. That's pretty dishonest.

so family is a pohysical possession?

your quoting the verses above and below that have no bearing on the meaning of the verses im quoting but calling it dishonest becasue i dont change the meaning to be anything other then it is?